Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Sounds buggy.  Would anything break if we were to make --depth=1 mean
>>> "1 deep, including the tip commit"?
>> As long as we do not change the meaning of the "shallow" count going
>> over the wire (i.e. the number we receive from the user will be
>> fudged, so that user's "depth 1" that used to mean "the tip and one
>> behind it" is expressed as "depth 2" at the end-user level, and we
>> send over the wire the number that corresponded to the old "depth
>> 1"), I do not think anything will break, and then --depth=0 may
>> magically start meaning "only the tip; its immediate parents will
>> not be transferred and recorded as the shallow boundary in the
>> receiving repository".
> I'd rather we reserve 0 for unlimited fetch, something we haven't done
> so far [1]. And because "unlimited clone" with --depth does not make
> sense, --depth=0 should be rejected by git-clone.

I actually was thinking about changing --depth=1 to mean "the tip,
with zero commits behind it" (and that was consistent with my
description of "fudging"), but ended up saying "--depth=0" by
mistake.  I too think "--depth=0" or "--depth<0" does not make
sense, so we are in agreement.

Thanks for a sanity check.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to